Thank you, really I was interested in your opinion, as well as scientific. The fact is, there does not seem to be such a scientific concept as love. Probably, most people tend to think this is brain chemistry or the state into which a person "got", as you indicated in your comments.
Romance, like love, and everything related to it, it seems more like a fiction of a man. It was done with the purpose to give a human face a human face, humanize it. I hope, clearly translated the last sentence. If you look at a person from a biological point of view, then this is a machine that performs a certain set of commands. Therefore, attributing to the person, something special type of Love, naming with feelings, as if it comes from within ... well, I do not know, it's not grounded ... not scientifically ...
Everything that happens to us happens in the brain, and it looks like a set of simple commands that control our body. And even if you have a pang in your heart, from the synthetic picture you saw, it is still a consequence of the work of your brain.
Thank you for your answers and comments. Have a good day.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
😊
how would you define love? Or in which context have you thought about it?
biologically I would say that a human is an organism that performs relational contact towards his environment of other organisms with which he interdepends. The organism "human" has direct and indirect relations to all other organisms on the planet, be it simple ones or complex ones. Bacteria live in the human body and are being hosted without as well as with some problems. The skin is the interface between the inner and the outer system and it's designed elegantly not to let too much things through but being not too solid as to stay sensitive to touch in this particularly humanly way. One also could say that the bee and the flower is one organism and if you think about it you could actually attribute all of the diverse organisms on earth as one huge organism each and every one of them is interconnected. Some relations are really fancy and peaceful, some aren't. Some are using others to sneak in and some do sacrifice themselves to protect another. Did you know that mushrooms/spores in the ground have a huge net so that they serve as a kind of communication network? ... Oh well ... I digressed :) was just wanting to correct a little the biological description...
How interesting you wrote ...
I know about the fungi that the mycelium can extend to many kilometer, but that they serve for someone as a connection (did I understand you correctly, to communicate information like fiber?) I did not hear ... The mushrooms live together with the tree and serve as part of the nutritional system trees, for certain substances.
It is very accurately noted that everything is interconnected in the world. But I would also say that we are a closed system. And since we are a closed system, one follows from the other or there is a causal relationship between the objects of the system. And deleting one can create a violation and change the direction of the links.
In fact, a person communicates with the outside world not only through the skin. We have 5 senses and, accordingly, feelings. Only through them we communicate with the outside world. And indeed they are all on the surface of our body. Inside us or all life on earth, there are no feelings. About what happens inside us, we do not need to know. But inside there are pain receptors that signal the violation or breakdown of our body.
Our senses are sight - eyes, hearing-ears, taste-mouth, sense of smell - nose and touch (tectile) on the entire surface of our body, including gleams.
If we talk about love, of course it's not true to refer it to feeling. But people would not have used this concept so simply, it means that it is somewhere close, but not correctly marked.
If we talk about our feelings, then they should have gradation, as well as any object determined by the device.
For example, what we see we may like or not be corrected and all this fits, say on a 10-point scale. You can create your own preferences yourself.
I imagine it so, if we talk about love, then this state comes into our brain when what we see, hear, smell, try and touch on our scale goes off scale. The object of adoration is beautiful for all five senses. You can see this by observing the opposite picture, when the love composition begins to pass. Usually, there is a gradual shutdown on one of the senses. For example, you have ceased to like the smell or even become disgusting .... Well, then everything is on the rise ...
Yes, a dialogue about love in another sense can be quite interesting:)
Agreed. I guess you might know then about Autopoeisis?
In my former comment I was more referring to the use of language of yours
It shows an influence of the mechanistic view on a system, a mechanical one whereas when you talk about biology an organism is not a mechanical entity but an organic one. What differentiates an organism form a mechanism is that the organism grows and the mechanism is built. As well as I see also the computational influence as you talk about "commands" which is used in computer language. In an organic body, I would say it's not so much commands which are given but more a form of communication, a back and forth feeding of chemicals. In the end, of course, you can translate that into a code using language.
You are not "building" stem cells, for example, you are "growing" them in a petri dish. Nobody can build a tree but take a seedling and let it grow. An organism is not just the sum of its parts whereas a mechanism certainly is exactly that. It is therefore unable to repair itself but must be repaired from an entity which has formerly built it.
Don't know if I understood the last part of your comment. Do you mean what I decided to love can be changed by my will? I'd agree on that.
Let me disagree with you. The organism is the most usual mechanism. Which consists of parts, and parts are formed by cells. In fact, this mechanism is a colony of cells. The organism as such is a formation from a multitude of cells. You can compare with the city, where people act as the cells inhabiting this city.
Everything that happens in the body is based on commands and is performed by the mechanisms that are created in the cells. The basic set of commands is recorded in each DNA, the DNA itself is placed in each cell. I can not understand how the consistency of the actions of the cells of the whole organism is realized. It takes time to sort it out.
Everything that happens in cells is coordinated and implemented on the basis of commands and mechanisms that perform them.
I do not know what you mean by the word biological object. But all living things are mechanics. And man, as people define it, only in our unreal and fictitious world is human. There is nothing in a person different from the same car, except that the device is more complicated and in many ways we do not understand until now. We are so arranged that we talk about what we do not understand.
I do not know if you saw the movie, look, I advise. How amazing is the life of the cell. The cell is a very complex mechanism. About 2,000 processes occur in the cell at the same time. In large cells, the number of processes can reach up to 10,000. You just imagine in such a small cell 10,000 processes at a time. Something is synthesized, something is disintegrating, something is being built, something is breaking down, something is accumulating, something is being removed, something is being programmed, something is being erased.
And how many things can you do at the same time? Human?
I respect your approach.
However, we argue from our different worldviews. Mine is of a different identity than yours. Here is a translation of the German wiki article on the mechanistic worldview (in the English version it is unfortunately not so well worked out):
source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanistisches_world_image
I am someone who considers both views of life relevant and would say that I am therefore more of a follower of systemism. You are "right" from your point of view, I am "right" from mine:) Depending which school of knowledge we prefer to follow that makes the most sense to each, no?
Thank you, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I just share my thoughts and the information that is already known and proven.
I am very far from theories and their creators. To be honest, I'm not interested in theory. I am a realist and I say what I see. If the kinesin, which carries the membrane vesicles inside the cell in a literal sense, by charging and carrying, then this is the mechanism, if you like the robot. And he works according to the rules of physics. And for example, another mechanism is a motor. There is no mysticism or something not explainable.
If you like, we will combine the two theories. But theories are just talking. And the laws of physics - this means to implement.
In occasion of your idea that the matter is strongly limited in the possibilities of interaction I want to tell the opinion.
I think that there is no impact whatsoever, everything is based on copying. You will not argue that when we touch something, we do it in reality. As is known between the atoms of which matter consists there must be a distance and it is. Otherwise, everything would be lost in a solid and inconspicuous mess. We do not touch and we have an impact and we always have a reaction. Then it happens. I think that interaction is based on copying - repetition, which is possible at a distance and without interaction.
We have such an expression in everyday life: A woman is always right, now we are right, so we are three, and we are power!)))))
Have a good day.
LOL! Sure about not trying to convince me? :)
Oh, I know motors, grew up with four brothers: they were always hidden under their cars or hoods. ;-)
Have you ever seen a Kinesin or is it something others made visible for you through abstraction resp. visual models? So that already is not the visible reality you just referred to but a cognized construction in order to describe and take influence on what is perceived as a mechanism.
The space between certainty and uncertainty is nevertheless there. And of course, this is a theory as you may very well know that science is operating with probabilities, averages and all kinds of quantities but never claims for itself that there is a certain hundred percent water proved evidence of "reality". Otherwise, you couldn't attribute the explanation of "Kinesin" to Biology resp. the specification of Genetics (based on theories). As Biology is accepted widely as science.
Of course not, why should it? A mechanism is just a mechanism.
No, I am not arguing that touching matter is not real, because it is. And I do agree with you that the space in between us is what holds us together and makes connection possible in the first place. What I touch is in full processing as I myself am in full processing through what I call my life. As nobody really can explain what life actually is, I would say, that is the part which remains mysterious and unexplainable. I like explanations a lot and I am always in search for them. But I also like to accept the uncertainty which makes life really fruitful and lively because I cannot explain it.
You, too have a good day. Was a pleasure and gave me some inspiration!